ringer said:lcjjdnh said:SF_Express said:lcjjdnh said:ringer said:It's up to the alleged victim to report the crime to the cops, not the newspaper.
So as a question of morality, do you absolve a normal citizen from this responsibility too? Or do you believe newspapers have a different set of obligations?
This kind of thing has been debated forever. Photographer shooting a picture of something he could have made better or whatever. Reporters knowing information that could have stopped something bad from happening.
Right. I was trying to get at his answer. As above, I simply don't see how the newspaper could be absolved from moral responsibility, barring a utilitarian justification that failure to act in this circumstances creates a level of trust (b/c they protected sources) that will allow them to engage in morally greater conduct in the future. Hiding behind a set of "ethical" rules doesn't help, except to the extent those ethical rules overlaps with moral ones (in which case it's the morality that guides the ethics, not the ethics themselves). If not, one could create ethical guidelines for any immoral behavior to justify the activity.
The responsibility of the newspaper is to get at the truth. Simple as that.
You didn't answer the question. Are you saying the newspaper has less responsibility than a normal person would? Or that a normal person has no responsibility to alert the police either?